Category: Harut Sassounian

Israel’s Parliament — the Knesset — held “an historic session” on June 12, during which “seven different political parties overwhelmingly endorsed recognition of the Armenian Genocide,” according to Dr. Israel Charny, Executive Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem. He cautiously predicted that the Knesset would complete its legislative procedures leading to recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

While acknowledging the Armenian Genocide would be salutary, Israel should have done so long ago. In fact, the Jewish State should have been the first country to recognize the genocide, in view of the awesome legacy of the Holocaust — Shoah. Who should empathize more with the victims of genocide than those who have suffered a similar fate themselves? As Knesset member Nino Abesadze pointed out during the hearing: “It is precisely because we have been a victim people that we do not dare fail to identify with another victim people.” Another influential Knesset member, Zeev Elkin, Chair of the Likud Caucus stated: “We are one of the last nations in the world that has still not recognized the Armenian Genocide. It is our moral responsibility that we have still not met.”

During the June 12 hearing, Knesset Chairman Reuven Rivlin spoke “firmly and inspiringly” with “profound feeling of both a Jewish and an Israeli imperative to extend a long overdue recognition,” Dr. Charny reported. Chairman Rivlin announced that there was no need for a new vote to recognize the Armenian Genocide since the Knesset had already voted unanimously for its recognition last year. Dr. Charny explained that unlike the US Congress, Knesset resolutions first go to the plenary session before being considered by one of its committees. The next step for the Armenian Genocide resolution is the Education Committee, after which it would be sent back to the Knesset for a final vote. Only then it could be said that the Knesset has officially recognized the Armenian Genocide.

One of the unexpected developments at the June 12 hearing was a statement by Minister of Environmental Affairs Gilad Erdan who announced that he was speaking officially on behalf of the government. He stated unambiguously that Israel had decided to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Furthermore, Minister Erdan claimed that “the State of Israel has never denied it, on the contrary, we deplore the [Armenian] genocide.” This was a surprising statement, since it is well known that, under Turkish pressure, Israel has persistently opposed recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Nevertheless, in defiance of Israeli state denialism, on April 24, 2000, Minister of Justice Yossi Beilin and Minister of Education Yossi Sarid acknowledged the Armenian Genocide, prompting the government to repudiate their statements. Beilin had also recognized the genocide in 1994, while serving as Deputy Foreign Minister.

The fact that serious discussions on the Armenian Genocide are now taking place at a time of deteriorating relations between Turkey and Israel raises troubling questions about the motives of the Israeli government. It would be morally repugnant to see the mass murder of a nation being exploited for crass political calculations. Yet, one has to realize that international relations are rarely based on moral principles. Were it not for economic and political considerations, the whole world would have long ago recognized the Armenian Genocide.

While critics may be displeased that Israel is considering recognition of the Armenian Genocide at a time of discord with Turkey, the greater wrong, in my view, was not doing the right thing for all these years. Even now, despite efforts to rectify the past and uphold the truth, some Israeli officials are concerned that raising the Armenian Genocide issue would further exacerbate relations with Turkey. Knesset member Arieh Eldad dismissed such objections by pointing out the illogical stance of the naysayers: “A few years ago, people said we couldn’t talk about it because of our good relations with Turkey. Now people say we can’t talk about it because of our bad relations with Turkey.” Eldad added that when people are reluctant to address moral and ethical issues there is always a claim that the timing of such a discussion is wrong.

There is, however, one red line that no Armenian should cross. Israeli officials have sought to obtain political concessions from Armenia and Armenians in return for genocide recognition. Such demands should be rejected outright since Armenians do not owe anything to Israel for recognizing the genocide — a universally acknowledged historical fact. Israel should recognize the Armenian Genocide simply because it is the right thing to do, reflecting the sentiments of all righteous Jews worldwide.

 

 

Clinton Should Share the Blame

For Killings of Armenian Soldiers

 

A tragic pattern of bloody engagements continues to recur along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border at great human cost. Whenever high level visits or international meetings are scheduled on the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict, Azerbaijan unfailingly initiates attacks on Armenian border guards causing many casualties.

 

Azerbaijan’s leaders hope that such hostile action would impress upon the mediating countries the urgency of resolving the conflict by pressuring Armenia’s leadership to make territorial concessions on Artsakh.

 

Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the Caucasus republics. On the day of her arrival in Yerevan, Azeri forces attacked two Armenian border posts, killing three soldiers and wounding many others. In the ensuing days, more Azeri attacks took place, drawing Armenian return fire, resulting in scores of casualties, mostly on the Azeri side.

 

Armenians expected Secretary Clinton to strongly condemn Azerbaijan after its initial attack. Clearly, the Azeri military action was timed to coincide with her visit to Armenia. Yet, regrettably, the Secretary merely urged both countries to refrain from “the use of force,” stressing that the Artsakh conflict “can be resolved exclusively by peaceful means.” Clinton’s totally unacceptable statement equated the aggressors with the victims. Moreover, by not condemning the Azeri attacks, she actually emboldened Azerbaijan to commit further acts of aggression against Armenia.

 

Since it is common knowledge that Azerbaijan orchestrates such attacks to coincide with visits of high-ranking officials to the region, Secretary Clinton should have warned Azerbaijan, before embarking on her trip, not to initiate any hostile action while she was in the area. The State Department should have advised the Azeri government that any breach of the ceasefire during the Clinton visit would be personally embarrassing for the Secretary of State, leaving her no choice but to cancel her trip to Baku. Even if such a warning was not issued in advance, Clinton should have refused to go to Baku after the Azeri attacks. Unfortunately, the Secretary placed a higher value on Azeri oil than on Armenian blood. By her actions, she also undermined the international prestige and moral standing of the United States!

 

As this could be Clinton’s farewell visit to the region — she is retiring from public service later this year — it is regrettable that she will leave behind a legacy of violence and conflict rather than peace and reconciliation. The US Secretary may have come to Yerevan and Baku to encourage a negotiated settlement to the Artsakh conflict, yet she left the region more destabilized than before.

 

Another factor that has encouraged Azerbaijan to continue its attacks is the inadequate Armenian response to the countless ceasefire violations since 1994. Armenians will be unable to stop Azeri aggression simply by firing back. The Aliyev regime should be made to understand that it would pay a heavy price for breaching the ceasefire. Rather than simply returning fire, the Armenian response should be to neutralize the Azeri military positions responsible for initiating the attacks.

 

Although some may fear that a more robust Armenian response would lead to all-out conflict, such concerns are misplaced because Azerbaijan is not ready to wage war, according to most military experts. By starting a premature war, the Azeris risk losing even more territories, not to mention the enormous economic losses!

 

To deter further Azeri aggression and reduce Armenian casualties, here are seven actions that Armenia may consider taking should Azerbaijan continue to violate the ceasefire:

 

— Respond by targeting Azerbaijan’s petroleum industry, disrupting its oil and gas pipelines. The best defense is a good offense.

 

— Take preemptive action to neutralize Azeri snipers who regularly target Armenian border guards and civilians in nearby villages.

 

— After each attack suspend peace talks with Azerbaijan for an indefinite period. One cannot talk peace and fight at the same.

 

— Demand that all countries refrain from the sale of weapons to Azerbaijan.

 

— Urge CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization), a defense-alliance that includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to warn Azerbaijan that any further attacks on Armenia would trigger a collective military response from all CSTO members.

 

— Declare that Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan in the Artsakh conflict constitutes a hostile act, and hence withdraw Armenia’s signature from the Armenia-Turkey Protocols.

 

— Recognize the Republic of Artsakh as an independent state and invite other countries to do likewise.

 

 

 

While readers are generally aware that the Executive and Legislative branches of the US government have recognized the Armenian Genocide, it is not as widely known that the US Judiciary has also reaffirmed the facts of the Armenian Genocide on several occasions. Indeed, all three branches of the US government have gone on record confirming that the Armenian Genocide was indeed a genocide.

 

The first time that the Executive branch made reference to the Armenian Genocide was back in 1951 in a key document filed by the US government with the International Court of Justice (World Court). It stated: “The Genocide Convention resulted from the inhuman and barbarous practices which prevailed in certain countries prior to and during World War II, when entire religious, racial and national minority groups were threatened with and subjected to deliberate extermination. The practice of genocide has occurred throughout human history. The Roman persecution of the Christians, the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples of the crime of genocide.”

 

The second reference by the Executive branch to the Armenian Genocide was made by Pres. Ronald Reagan when he issued Presidential Proclamation 4838 on April 22, 1981, in which he stated: “Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it — and like too many other such persecutions of too many other peoples — the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.”

 

The Legislative branch of the US government adopted two resolutions confirming the historical facts of the Armenian Genocide. The first resolution, approved by the US House of Representatives on April 8, 1975, designated April 24, 1975 “as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially those of Armenian ancestry who succumbed to the genocide perpetrated in 1915.” A second resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives on September 10, 1984, designating April 24, 1985 “as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially the one and one-half million people of Armenian ancestry who were the victims of the genocide perpetrated in Turkey between 1915 and 1923.” In addition, the House adopted two amendments on the Armenian Genocide in the 1996 and 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriation Act.

 

However, most people are unaware that the Judiciary, the third branch of the US government, has issued at least three federal court rulings concerning the Armenian Genocide:

 

The first judicial reference to the Armenian Genocide was the unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals on August 11, 2010. In a decision written by former US Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the court rejected a claim by an American-Turkish group that a curricular guide issued by the Massachusetts Education Commissioner explicitly referring to the Armenian Genocide should have included “contra-genocide” references.

 

The second court case involving the Armenian Genocide was the ruling of federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on January 26, 2011, in the lawsuits regarding the Armenian Genocide Museum & Memorial in Washington, D.C. In the opening paragraph of her decision, Judge Kollar-Kotelly quoted the chilling words of Adolf Hitler: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” She explained that Hitler was referring to “the largely successful efforts by the Ottoman-Turkish government to eliminate the Armenian population living on its historical homeland during the World War I era, known today as the Armenian Genocide.” The Judge stated in a footnote that “the Court’s use of the term ‘genocide’ is not intended to express any opinion on the propriety of that label.”

 

The third judicial reference to the Armenian Genocide was made on May 3, 2012, by a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, denying the claim of the Turkish Coalition of America against the University of Minnesota. In a unanimous opinion, the judges referred unambiguously and without qualification to the Armenian Genocide, describing it as “the Turkish genocide of Armenians during World War I.”

 

With all three independent branches of the US government going on record reaffirming the Armenian Genocide, the United States has gained its rightful place in the list of righteous nations that have recognized the Armenian Genocide. In fact, in many respects, the United States has compiled a more extensive record of acknowledging the Armenian Genocide than most other countries that have merely adopted a legislative resolution on this issue.

 

 

 

 

My latest column on Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s efforts to initiate a dialog with the Diaspora generated numerous reactions from both Armenians and Turks.

 

Turkish newspapers, TV stations, and websites gave extensive coverage to Davutoglu’s reported overtures to Armenians. The Turkish media linked the Foreign Minister’s initiative to Armenian plans for the commemoration of the 100^th anniversary of the Genocide in 2015.

 

Armenians posted dozens of comments on websites and facebook in response to my column which was circulated worldwide in English, Armenian, Turkish, French, and Russian. The Armenian reaction was understandably skeptical and cautious. Armenian government officials quietly followed the reports on Davutoglu’s meetings without making any public comment, while the Armenian press in Istanbul simply reprinted what the Turkish media had published on this topic.

 

Armenian readers raised two key issues: Who would represent the Diaspora if and when Armenians start negotiating with Turkey, and what should be the specific Armenian demands from the Turkish government?

 

These are highly complex issues deserving serious consideration by Armenians worldwide. Ideally, Diaspora representatives should be selected through elections in various countries, as proposed in my earlier columns. Those elected would have the right to represent Diaspora Armenians in any negotiations.

 

These representatives would have to coordinate their decisions and actions with the Armenian government, particularly on the critical issue of negotiating with Turkey, by forming a joint delegation. As Armenians learned from the recent fiasco of the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, it would be unthinkable to reach a settlement with Turkey without the participation and agreement of both Armenia and the Diaspora.

 

In the absence of an elected Diasporan structure, representatives of the three main Armenian political parties, jointly with the Armenian government, could take the lead in forming a single negotiating team. To make the delegation more inclusive, several major community organizations and prominent individuals could be asked to join, including representatives of Armenians in Turkey.

 

Another critical issue is framing the agenda of negotiations with Turkish officials. What are the Armenians’ concrete demands from Turkey? This is an extremely serious and sensitive matter that requires in depth knowledge of the Armenian Cause and expertise in negotiating strategies and tactics.

 

It would be instructive for Armenians to review how Israel and 23 major Jewish organizations came together as the

Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, to obtain restitution for Holocaust victims; and how these organizations coordinated their positions with the State of Israel which signed a separate Reparations Agreement with West Germany? Over the years, as a result of their collaborative efforts, the coalition of Jewish Diaspora organizations and Israel received more than $70 billion dollars in restitution from Germany.

 

Additional lessons could be learned from examples of financial settlements resulting from mass torts, asbestos exposure and product liability, and claims arising from destruction of the World Trade Center and the Gulf oil spill.

 

There is, however, a significant difference between the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. While the Jewish people were exterminated in European countries under Nazi rule, Armenians were massacred and forcefully driven from their ancestral homeland. Therefore, no amount of monetary payment will fully compensate Armenians for the loss of their historic lands. Armenians should seek not only compensation for their personal losses, but also the return of Western Armenia as arbitrated by Pres. Woodrow Wilson — a claim Turkey has repeatedly rejected.

 

Should serious negotiations materialize, the joint Armenian delegation could ask Turkey to take the following preliminary actions to show its good faith:

 

— Compensate all Genocide victims;

— Rebuild and return all religious sites to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul;

— Return all confiscated private and community properties to their Armenian owners;

— Provide the Republic of Armenia with special access to the Turkish port of Trabzon for commercial purposes;

— Give Armenians visa-free entry to Ararat, Ani, and other Armenian historical sites in Turkey;

— Lift the blockade of Armenia;

— End Turkey’s official policy of denial of the Armenian Genocide and annul Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code;

— Refrain from all hostile policies directed against Armenia and Artsakh (Karabagh).

 

These measures, if agreed upon, would represent significant progress in the pursuit of Armenian claims from Turkey, whereas the issue of territorial restitution could be addressed separately through international legal action.

 ——FOLLOW UP ————————

Armenians Should Form a United Front Before Any Negotiations With Turkey

Harut Sassounian,

My latest column on Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s efforts to initiate a dialog with the Diaspora generated numerous reactions from both Armenians and Turks.

Turkish newspapers, TV stations, and websites gave extensive coverage to Davutoglu’s reported overtures to Armenians.

The Turkish media linked the Foreign Minister’s initiative to Armenian plans for the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Genocide in 2015.

Armenians posted dozens of comments on websites and facebook in response to my column which was circulated worldwide in English, Armenian, Turkish, French, and Russian. The Armenian reaction was understandably skeptical and cautious. Armenian government officials quietly followed the reports on Davutoglu’s meetings without making any public comment, while the Armenian press in Istanbul simply reprinted what the Turkish media had published on this topic.

Armenian readers raised two key issues: Who would represent the Diaspora if and when Armenians start negotiating with Turkey, and what should be the specific Armenian demands from the Turkish government?

These are highly complex issues deserving serious consideration by Armenians worldwide. Ideally, Diaspora representatives should be selected through elections in various countries, as proposed in my earlier columns. Those elected would have the right to represent Diaspora Armenians in any negotiations.

These representatives would have to coordinate their decisions and actions with the Armenian government, particularly on the critical issue of negotiating with Turkey, by forming a joint delegation. As Armenians learned from the recent fiasco of the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, it would be unthinkable to reach a settlement with Turkey without the participation and agreement of both Armenia and the Diaspora.

In the absence of an elected Diasporan structure, representatives of the three main Armenian political parties, jointly with the Armenian government, could take the lead in forming a single negotiating team. To make the delegation more inclusive, several major community organizations and prominent individuals could be asked to join, including representatives of Armenians in Turkey.

Another critical issue is framing the agenda of negotiations with Turkish officials. What are the Armenians’ concrete demands from Turkey? This is an extremely serious and sensitive matter that requires in depth knowledge of the Armenian Cause and expertise in negotiating strategies and tactics.

It would be instructive for Armenians to review how Israel and 23 major Jewish organizations came together as the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, to obtain restitution for Holocaust victims; and how these organizations coordinated their positions with the State of Israel which signed a separate Reparations Agreement with West Germany? Over the years, as a result of their collaborative efforts, the coalition of Jewish Diaspora organizations and Israel received more than $70 billion dollars in restitution from Germany.

Additional lessons could be learned from examples of financial settlements resulting from mass torts, asbestos exposure and product liability, and claims arising from destruction of the World Trade Center and the Gulf oil spill.

There is, however, a significant difference between the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. While the Jewish people were exterminated in European countries under Nazi rule, Armenians were massacred and forcefully driven from their ancestral homeland. Therefore, no amount of monetary payment will fully compensate Armenians for the loss of their historic lands. Armenians should seek not only compensation for their personal losses, but also the return of Western Armenia as arbitrated by Pres. Woodrow Wilson — a claim Turkey has repeatedly rejected.

Should serious negotiations materialize, the joint Armenian delegation could ask Turkey to take the following preliminary actions to show its good faith:

— Compensate all Genocide victims;

— Rebuild and return all religious sites to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul;

— Return all confiscated private and community properties to their Armenian owners;

— Provide the Republic of Armenia with special access to the Turkish port of Trabzon for commercial purposes;

— Give Armenians visa-free entry to Ararat, Ani, and other Armenian historical sites in Turkey;

— Lift the blockade of Armenia;

— End Turkey’s official policy of denial of the Armenian Genocide and annul Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code;

— Refrain from all hostile policies directed against Armenia and Artsakh (Karabagh).

These measures, if agreed upon, would represent significant progress in the pursuit of Armenian claims from Turkey, whereas the issue of territorial restitution could be addressed separately through international legal action.

 

  Հայերը Պէտք Է Միասնական Ճակատ Կազմեն՝ Թուրքիոյ Հետ Որեւէ Բանակցութիւն Վարելէ Առաջ

  Հայերը Պետք Է Միասնական Ճակատ Կազմեն Թուրքիայի Հետ Ցանկացած Բանակցություն Վարելուց Առաջ

  Armenians Should Form a United Front Before Any Negotiations With Turkey

  Les Arméniens doivent former un front uni avant d’entamer toute négociation avec la Turquie

  Армяне Должны Сформировать Единый Фронт До Любых Переговоров С Турцией

 

 

 

I have been informed by reliable sources that Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is continuing his efforts to initiate a personal ‘dialog’ with the Diaspora on Armenian-Turkish issues. Earlier this month, Davutoglu met with Armenian-Americans, as follow up to the meetings he held in Washington last March.

 

During their conversation in May, the Armenian interlocutors frankly advised the Turkish Foreign Minister that Ankara must address Armenian demands for genocide recognition and restitution before any ‘reconciliation’ could be achieved. The Turkish side reportedly indicated a willingness to discuss these thorny issues with Diasporan representatives.

 

Despite the seeming openness of Foreign Minister Davutoglu, Armenians have well-founded reasons to mistrust such overtures, given Turkey’s decades-long denial of the Armenian Genocide and its antagonistic policies toward the Diaspora, Armenia and Artsakh. Armenians also suspect that Turkish officials may exploit meetings with the Diaspora to score propaganda points with world public opinion.

 

Nonetheless, one wonders why the very busy Turkish Foreign Minister has invested so much of his precious time and effort to hold a series of private meetings with Armenians in recent weeks.

 

One possible explanation is that Turkish leaders are seriously concerned about the upcoming 100^th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Ankara may have realized that unless it took proactive measures, it could not stem the tide of anti-Turkish publicity generated in 2015 by Armenian commemorative activities worldwide.

 

The second likely reason why the Turkish government may want to talk with Diaspora Armenians is its long-standing interest in joining the European Union. As the newly-elected French President Francois Hollande warned, unless Turkey recognizes the Armenian Genocide, France will reject its application for EU membership.

 

The third possible explanation for the Turkish overtures is that Prime Minister Rejeb Erdogan has a freer hand in tackling Armenian-Turkish issues at a time when his ruling party controls the Parliament and many of his hard-line military adversaries are under arrest.

 

Regardless of why Turkey is reaching out to the Diaspora at this time, Armenians have to make their decisions based solely on their own national interest, as to whether this is an opportune moment to test Turkey’s resolve to deal with the disastrous consequences of the Armenian Genocide.

 

However, before Diaspora’s leaders react to Davutoglu’s persistent efforts for ‘dialog,’ they should ask Turkish officials to clarify their true intentions by making some positive gestures, starting with the return of the Holy Cross Church on Akhtamar Island to the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey. This historic church is currently designated as a museum belonging to the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Furthermore, the Turkish government has to do much more than renovating a couple of churches for touristic purposes and returning a handful of properties to the Armenian community in Istanbul. There are thousands of confiscated churches and community properties throughout Turkey that must be returned to their rightful Armenian owners.

 

An initial test of Turkish sincerity in pursuing ‘reconciliation’ with Armenians would be putting an immediate halt to genocide denial, eliminating Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, and ending all adversarial behavior toward Armenia and Artsakh.

 

In view of the fact that the Turkish government will not willingly and unconditionally meet Armenian demands, and that all outstanding issues would have to be resolved someday through direct negotiations, Diasporan organizational leaders should prepare for such an eventuality. In this regard, it is important to review the records of the 1977 meeting in Zurich, Switzerland, between Turkish Foreign Minister Sabri Caglayangil and representatives of the three Armenian political parties.

 

Here are some preliminary thoughts to consider before any further meetings or discussions are held between Turkish leaders and Diaspora representatives:

1. In the absence of an elected Diasporan representative body, major Armenian organizations, with assistance from experts in diplomacy and the art of negotiation, should start drafting a common strategy and a list of demands from Turkey. No Armenian organization or individual should be involved in separate negotiations with Turkey, to deny Ankara the opportunity to create disunity in the Diaspora.
2. It is imperative that Diasporan representatives coordinate their negotiating positions with leaders in Armenia and Artsakh to assure a common stand vis-à-vis Turkey.

In normal circumstances, Turkish diplomats would have dealt with Armenian issues in direct negotiations with their counterparts in Armenia. However, given Azerbaijan’s obstruction of the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, pending the resolution of the Karabagh (Artsakh) conflict, Turkish leaders are left with no choice but to reach out to the Diaspora and address its legitimate demands.

 

 

 

 

I just returned from a fascinating trip to Egypt. The Primate of the Armenian Church had invited me on behalf of the Diocesan Council to deliver the keynote address at the annual commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. I accepted the invitation with some trepidation given the on-going turmoil in Egypt since the toppling of the 40-year despotic rule of Pres. Hosni Mubarak.

 

Bishop Ashot Mnatsakanyan had reassured me that the situation in the country was peaceful, and that the community was looking forward to my visit, as they have been reading my weekly columns in local Armenian newspapers.

 

Upon my arrival in Cairo, I visited the Diocesan headquarters and the Armenian Embassy where I encountered a familiar face. Amb. Armen Melkonian, an old friend, had served as the Consul General of Armenia in Los Angeles a decade ago. After a pleasant lunch with the Primate and the Ambassador on a restaurant-ship on the Nile, I spent the afternoon at a massive shopping mall in Cairo buying new clothes as my suitcase was left behind in London by British Airways. I refrained from purchasing items that carried the “Made in Turkey” label.

 

Cairo is a highly congested city of 17 million. It takes more than an hour to travel a short distance. Most traffic lights do not work and no police are seen in the streets. The most shocking site in Cairo is the “City of the Dead” — a cemetery where tens of thousands of people live among the tombs. Amazingly, thousands of satellite dishes are perched on the tombs! One wonders how the destitute residents of the cemetery can afford satellite TV?

 

In the evening of April 28, I spoke at the Armenian Genocide commemoration in Cairo on the topic of “Genocide Recognition or Pursuit of Justice?” The next day, I traveled to the historic city of Alexandria where I delivered similar remarks at the commemorative event organized by the Armenian community.

 

Returning to Cairo, I participated in a town-hall meeting on May 2, during which community members questioned me on contemporary Armenian issues. The inevitable question that almost always comes up during my talks, not surprisingly was also raised in Cairo and Alexandria: “Do Armenians lose their rights for genocide restitution after 100 years?” My answer was a firm NO…. There are no statutes of limitation on the crime of genocide under international law!

 

One of the highlights of the trip was the reception dedicated to the printing of my Arabic book in Cairo, originally published in Beirut, titled: “The Armenian Genocide: The World Speaks Out — 1915-2005, Documents and Declarations.” The book signing ceremony was held at the Armenian Embassy in the presence of representatives from other Embassies, members of the Egyptian media, scholars from local universities, Armenian community leaders, and members of the clergy. Brief remarks were made by Amb. Melkonian and Prof. Mohammad Rifa’at al-Imam who wrote the introduction to the Egyptian edition of the book, followed by my concluding comments. While in Cairo I gave a number of interviews published in Arabic, English, and Armenian in the local press.

 

I had the pleasure of visiting colleagues at Housaper and Arev Armenian newspapers. I also paid a heart-breaking visit to the Kalousdian School which was days away from shutting its doors due to a shortage of students after serving the educational needs of the community for more than 150 years. The Kalousdian School will be merging with the Noubarian School in Cairo.

 

While the Armenian community is safe in Egypt, it is struggling to cope with the uncertainties of a country slowly transitioning from military to civilian rule. The newly formed Parliament, dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists, may be disbanded and replaced with a more representative body. Later this month, Egyptians have the opportunity to elect a president who could take bold initiatives to begin healing their ancient and glorious country’s many ills.

 

In recent years, a large number of Armenians left Egypt for greener pastures in the United States, Canada and Australia. Yet, those who have remained are doing their utmost to cling to their language, religion and ethnic traditions. Fortunately, local Armenian organizations can benefit from vast real estate holdings bequeathed to them decades ago by Armenians who were wealthy businessmen and high ranking Egyptian government officials.

 

It is incumbent on the Government of Armenia and Armenians worldwide to extend a helping hand to their compatriots in Cairo and Alexandria and not allow these once vibrant communities to turn into ghost towns with extensive resources that only a few would enjoy.